HN user
You are completely correct. Regarding your first and last sentences, the C19 invasion of HN has normalized "Did you read the article?" style comments, though this is explicitly recommended against in the guidelines:
No, that source does not validate your claim. Rick Perry did not "attack regulation".
Yes, even further the guidelines suggest that snark has no place on HN. One day we may undo the damage done by the massive influx of C19 redditers.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit:
Replying to the misrepresentation of my words:
I did not state that HN is turning into Reddit. HN is not turning into reddit. The culture of HN has been damaged, however, by the lack of acculturation of last years influx.
Quoting the guidelines is not "throwing them at" other users. Please read the words actually written.
I see a sarcastic misrepresentation of the parent's comment, and nothing of substance here. Is there a deeper, substantial point you wish to make?
If you dig into the sourcing if the Colorado Sun's article, it cites an Instagram post[1] as evidence the business is closing, but the post says no such thing
In that post, they announced that they will be closing, with the proximal cause being a surge of cancelations immediately after the accusations. I cannot copy paste the text as its within the images.
Edit: "...I have decided to close Kindness Yoga." Previous slide uses vague, passive, avoidant language to reference the accusations.
Yes, you are correct. Noting that [not] all cancel efforts are the same, and I'm sure there are edge cases and exceptions, it seems that generally cancel culture efforts often gain momentum when the target shows 'perceived weakness' and often lose momentum when the target makes it very clear they don't care. In the case of corporations like Disney, the very idea of telling people to "fuck off" as you say is anathema to PR culture.
You make assertions which would require that the author was mistaken, while ungraciously and unfairly accusing them of lying. Posted elsewhere in this thread is evidence suggesting the possiblity that you may, in fact, have been mistaken. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?
No, I'm not arguing that proof is necessary for certainty. I'm pointing out that the implied reasoning is akin to argument from ignorance. We don't have to take a position on a topic if we are ignorant, but we often do so when doing so can be used to justify existing biases.
Are you saying that because they are now open, they never closed down?
My point is only that you strongly implied a fallacious argument, which damages your ability to reason on a topic.
That you cannot imagine an approach doesn't mean an approach doesn't exist. It may be possible to form a generalized understanding of an individuals predisposition based on testing with other substances, just as one example.
Can you explain the strawman you believe the parent is presenting? What is the original argument, and what is the misrepresentation?
That "hip jargon" is concise, specifies characteristics, and clarifies meaning.
Well, one thing you know is that poster knows no one reliant on powered medical devices.
No, this is simply a baseless assumption made by you, with an effect similar to poisoning the well. I know people on medical devices, and one day of power loss per 30 years is absolutely acceptable to them, give that they arranged to have backup power.
The parent stated their experience (one day without power) and the willingness to pay more for a specific change, they didn't say anything about longer time frames. If a single day of power outage will cause a person to die, such as those with certain medical issues, you must make preparations for backup power. I hope you can agree at the extreme that treating the entire power grid as if it were a hospital's internal power network would be absurd.
I agree. Curious, I started looking at the specific comments and commentator's post histories to see when they became active. As the tone changed, like minded people became comfortable and emboldened.
(By the way, your use of the word conservative, while correct, is likely to be misunderstood by some.)
I interpreted it as: Generally the clothes they wear are either too nice or too nasty for wiping clean wet hands. At the library and Starbucks they wear clothes appropriate for wiping hands. Too nasty makes sense to me, if you work landscaping, construction, maintenance, auto repair, possibly even in food service.
The too nice viewpoint is less relatable, but could be from fastidiousness or OCD applied to the clothes themselves, rather than being concerned about your hands.
Yes, this definitely contributes. You see these changes in the language used and in the voting habits as well.
Yes. If it helps, the script blocking toggle in Brave allows me to read it.
I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on the phrasing chosen...)
I could be wrong, but I assumed it had the necessary number of (presumably fake) 5 star reviews that had no comments, and that the parent post was listing only those reviews that left comments.
Edit:
In other words, "reviews" below means "feedback with comments, excluding feedback without comments":
look at the star breakdown of just the reviews - there's 835 of them
This can be hard to predict, but the following is sometimes helpful:
On this site, at least, you will have fewer downvotes if you don't speculate about downvote motivation.
You are correct, and this is important. The flood of 2020 newcomers have not acculturated, creating frequent misapprehensions.
Yes, Poe's law.
Elsewhere you say:
explains some of the change in tone here on HN
2020 was the year of HN's eternal September, facilitated by the behavior changes brought by c19. If you can recommend a similar forum that still retains a culture of objectivity I would be very interested.
Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue.
Issues can be moral, legal, neither, and both. Presuming an issue is strictly legal can preemptively invalidate efforts to address moral aspects of the issue.
If the moral aspect of an issue has universal consensus, there is little to discuss. This criteria shuts down meaningful discussion of ethics.
Edit: Laws follow from values, especially in democracies. As values change, eventually laws change, including the constitution. The gp was raising ethical considerations for us to consider. To me it seems like you discount and trivialize these concerns.
Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which does not apply in this case.
This isn't censorship, this is just a private company deciding who is and isn't allowed on their platform
This fits the definition of censorship. Maybe you meant to say this isn't governmental censorship?
Edit: Poe's law